|
On May 9, an amendment to the National Referendum Law submitted to the Diet by seven ruling and opposition parties, including the DPJ, was approved at a plenary session of the House of Representatives and sent to the House of Councillors. The revision would lower the voting age for those eligible to participate in a national referendum regarding constitutional amendment to 18 years of age or over, this change to be implemented four years from now.
While the existing legislation enacted in 2007 also establishes 18 years of age as the voting age for such referendums, it states that legislative measures should be taken to reduce the voting age of the Public Office Election Law and the age of majority in the Civil Code to 18 years of age before this provision is enforced, and stipulates as an interim measure that until these measures have been taken, the voting age for referendums would be 20 years of age or over. The National Referendum Law was enforced in 2010 without the aforementioned legislative measures having taken place.
Legislative measures that would relax the limitations on public servants soliciting for yes or no votes in the event of a national referendum and on expressing their opinions regarding constitutional amendment, and a review of the general system of national referendums apart from those relating to constitutional amendment have also been postponed, but provisions regarding these were also rationalized on this occasion.
The bill approved by the House of Representatives contained the following provisions: (1) the interim measure under which the voting age for national referendums would remain at 20 years of age or more until the voting age in the Public Office Election Law and the age of majority in the Civil Code have been reduced to 18 years of age or more would be amended to state that regardless of such provisions, the voting age for participation in national referendums on the Constitution should be reduced to 18 years of age or more, after four years have passed since the implementation of the amendment, (2) the provisions for voting age stipulated in the Public Office Election Law should be separately reviewed at an early date and legislative measures taken, considering the need to achieve parity with the voting age for national referendums, (3) with regard to the participation of public servants in campaigns relating to national referendums and their expressing opinions on the issue of constitutional revision, it was decided that this should be accepted as an exception to the stipulations laid out in various pieces of legislation which prohibit public servants engaging in political activities, (4) from the viewpoint of public servants’ political neutrality, a review should be conducted at an early date as to what restrictions should be placed on the role played by public servants in the planning, leading and supervision of activities relating to national referendums such as soliciting support for a particular position, petitions and demonstrations, and legislative measures taken, and (5) the system under which ordinary national referendums should be undertaken should be further reviewed, and regulations established.
DPJ Diet member Koichi Takemasa made a speech supporting the revision, stating, “Seven years ago, when the National Referendum Law was enacted, the DPJ played a leading role in reducing the voting age for referendums. It is a really huge step forward that eight parties have now agreed, through the passing of this amendment, that the voting age for referendums will be automatically lowered to 18 years of age or more after four years, and that they will continue to make efforts to reduce the voting age in elections.” He added, “If this amendment passes into law, it will be possible to hold a national referendum on constitutional revision, but this fact has nothing at all to do with movements to prepare the ground for constitutional revision.” He went on, “We politicians should first raise public awareness, particularly amongst the younger generation, regarding the system of national referendums, cultivate an atmosphere wherein people from every walk of life are interested in the Constitution, and embark on an honest dialogue with the public regarding the parts of the Constitution which need to be protected and the parts which are lacking.” Takemasa severely criticized hurried moves by Prime Minister Abe to have the right to collective self-defence approved by changing the interpretation of Article 9, saying, “It is unacceptable to undermine the Constitution just because there is now a fast route to constitutional revision.”
|
